Monday, May 04, 2015

Another multicultural sex criminal in Britain

A black Muslim from Somalia, showing the usual Muslim respect for women

Ione Wells, 20, prompted an outpouring of public support when she wrote a defiant open letter to her assailant, telling him he would not win. Today, the undergraduate’s attacker can be revealed as a 17-year-old migrant who is still attending college while awaiting sentencing.

The youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was caught when police saw him on CCTV following another woman shortly after attacking Miss Wells. When approached for a comment yesterday, he said: ‘I’m going to call the police on you,’ before running away.

The student, who is out on bail, pleaded guilty to sexual assault and is due to be sentenced next week.

Yesterday, when the student’s uncle was approached for a comment, he said his nephew, who is almost 18, had a right to privacy.

Later his smartly dressed father, who works as a minicab driver, refused to comment. The teenager lives with his large Somali family in a council flat in a tower block in Camden, London, which is not far from the crime scene. The family are believed to have moved to the country from Somalia more than ten years ago.

Yesterday the teenager was seen leaving his home with a relative dressed in a traditional burqa.

Miss Wells is considering facing him in court to have a ‘powerful impact’ on him when he is sentenced on Wednesday.

She revealed yesterday that it took her just 15 minutes to write her inspiring piece entitled A Letter to my Assaulter, which was published in the Oxford student newspaper Cherwell.

‘It came naturally and was a way to order that craze of emotions,’ said Miss Wells, who is reading English at Keble College.

But she said the main reason behind it was to launch a campaign for people ‘who feel afraid to speak’.

She has now helped to launch the #notguilty online campaign to stop victims being blamed when they are sexually assaulted.

Speaking about the days after last month’s attack, she told the London Evening Standard: ‘You keep thinking if only I hadn’t left at that specific time or if only I had come back a different way.

‘A lot of people feel guilt, shame, or that they will be blamed, when actually the inherent guilt is with the assaulter and not the victim.’

Miss Wells had been returning from visiting friends when she was attacked. Neighbours heard her screams and came out, which made the man run away.

‘We are lucky enough to live in a society which allows people to wear what they want and walk where they want,’ she said. ‘We must do everything we can to make sure people don’t feel they have to live any differently.’

When we hear stories about the police in faraway states poking their noses - or truncheons - into election campaigns, we balk. The cops, we believe, have no business using either pressure or threats against candidates standing for election. For the police to monitor what candidates say, to keep a check on the political positions they put forward and tell them off if their positions are ‘wrong’, is an intolerable intervention by the armed wing of the state into what ought to be a free and open debate between aspiring political representatives and the public.

Well, it’s no longer only tinpot nations overseas where the police barge into the electoral arena. It has now happened on Britain. This week. Ahead of the General Election on 7 May. The police have announced that they are investigating one of the people campaigning for a seat, not for anything he did, not for any crime against a person or property, but for something he said, for a political position he put forward during an election debate.

The man in question is Jim Wells, health minister for Northern Ireland and a leading member of the right-wing, socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party. Wells is the DUP candidate for South Down on 7 May. At the end of last week, at a hustings event at which he sought to drum up support, Wells offered his views on gay marriage and gay parenting. He said: ‘You don’t bring a child up in a homosexual relationship. That child is far more likely to be abused and neglected.’ Outrage ensued, and Wells quickly backtracked. He said he wasn’t talking about all homosexual relationships but about ‘unstable relationships’. That wasn’t enough and eventually he publicly apologised, as is the fashion today, for the ‘offence and deep concern’ his comments caused. But it gets worse. The police in Northern Ireland have now announced that they are investigating his comments.

After receiving complaints from members of the public about ‘hate speech’, the police say they are ‘investigating comments made by Mr Wells’. They have even visited the venue where the hustings debate was held - St Patrick’s Centre in Downpatrick - to gather evidence and speak to concerned citizens.

This is an outrage. It is the behaviour of a police state. For the police to treat the expression of a moral viewpoint during a hustings as a criminal matter calls into question the independence of the political realm in Britain and the right of voters, rather than coppers, to determine which views are acceptable and supportable and which are not. The treatment of a hustings debate as a crime scene, and the words spoken there as requiring investigation, represents an unacceptable intervention into the pre-election free flow of ideas. Anyone who values democracy should view this action by the police as way more offensive than what Wells actually said, whether you agree with him or not, for it brings to mind the behaviour of state forces in Zimbabwe or Syria or other nations in which state heavies criminalise and punish the expression of certain political views.

Some will say, ‘Ah, but in those nations it is radical or democratic views that tend to be policed, especially during election campaigns, whereas here the police are investigating an aspiring MP’s homophobic comments’. But this makes no difference, none at all. The principle that has been violated is the same in both cases: the political sphere, the world of arguments and positions and policies that only we the people should get to rule on, has been thrown open to the police, with ideas treated as potential crimes, and the acceptability of an idea left to the police to judge.

Yet what has been the reaction to this police-state behaviour, this Mugabe-style intolerance in Downpatrick? Everyone from Nick Clegg to Martin McGuinness is arguing that Wells should go, that he is no longer fit for public office. So let the police boot him out; let cops expel him from the public sphere. This reveals two very worrying things. Firstly, that gay rights have become one of the key justifications for authoritarianism in the 21st century, where anyone who criticises any aspect of gay lifestyles can expect to find himself treated in a way that gays once were: as a pariah, possibly even as mentally ill, as a potential criminal who must be handed over to the police. How sad that the once liberatory politics of gay rights should now lend itself so pliantly to the enforcement of a new moral conformism and to the punishment of anyone who refuses to celebrate all aspects of gayness and the modern ideology of diversity. And the second thing revealed by the Wells police scandal - for it is a scandal - is how unseriously so many politicos and media people treat democracy today. They call for Wells to be punished, when they should be asking what the hell the police are doing in the political realm of hustings, discussion and voting. Don’t dismiss Wells - dismiss the cops, from every zone, every area, every nook of this election campaign.

She urged every woman to be a "champion for change" in the world around them.

Clinton made the remarks last Thursday at the 2015 "Women in the World Summit," a three-day gathering in New York that examined the "struggles and triumphs of women and girls around the globe."

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth," Clinton said. "All the laws we've passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” Clinton added -- to applause.

"Reproductive health care" is the phrase liberals use when they're talking about abortion and birth control.

Elsewhere in that same speech, Clinton argued that "there has never been a better time in history to be born female."

Known for his unreasonable assaults on people even before this episode. Leftist hostility really shows in him

Former Labour MP Eric Joyce is facing jail after being convicted of attacking two teenage boys in a London corner shop as they tried to buy a chocolate milkshake.

The 54-year-old grabbed one of the teenagers, aged 14 and 15, in the aisles of News and Food Express in Camden, north London, last October. Pinning one to the ground in what he called a 'citizen's arrest', he elbowed the other in the chest after shouting: 'are you talking to me?'

Joyce denied two counts of common assault but was found guilty at Westminster Magistrates' Court this afternoon after CCTV of the attack was shown. The store's owner also recalled how one of the boys cried as the former Falkirk MP held him on the ground by his neck.

Joyce, who wore a bright blue suit and black tie for the trial, was told a prison sentence was possible given his previous convictions for assault. He stared straight ahead and showed no emotion in the dock as the verdicts were read out.

Sentencing, District Judge John Zani said he had 'no doubt' the politician was guilty of both charges. 'I have heard the evidence from both sides and we have had the opportunity to review the CCTV footage, and I do not accept your evidence that they both ran at or towards you,' he said.

Dismissing his defence that he was trying to stop the teenager from damaging the store, he continued: 'In my view you underplayed the violence that you meted out to these young men and you wanted the police called, in my opinion, so as to justify your actions.'

'I have no doubt, Mr Joyce, that you are guilty of both. That is my finding. 'Given my findings and your previous convictions, all options including imprisonment will be considered.'

Earlier the court heard how the former politician had 'wrestled' with one of the youngsters who he said was trying to damage the shop.

Giving evidence via video link one of the boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he had planned to buy a chocolate milkshake from the fridge when he walked past the former politician.

'He started shouting in my face and grabbing me up', he said. 'I can remember him sitting on top of me on the floor. He threw me, he flung me on the floor. 'He wasn't strangling me but it was quite hard if you know where I'm coming from', he said, adding he was 'begging' the MP to let him go.

The court was shown CCTV footage of the incident in which a cabinet is seen falling down and blocking the front of the shop.

Joyce was seen grabbing one of the teenagers by the chest, dragging him back into the shop when he tries to escape.

The politician then kept one of the youngsters on the ground by putting his knee on his chest as he told the shopkeeper, Ali Fahan, to phone police. Mr Fahan however told the court how the boy was crying and said he wanted to go home as the 54-year-old detained him. He said: 'I told the man to let him go because he was crying. The smaller boy was trying to save his friend. He was trying to push the man and save his friend and go home.'

Prosecutor Jon Swain said the former politician launched the 'unprovoked and unjustified' attack on the boys when they tried to 'squeeze' past him in the shop's narrow aisles.

'Mr Joyce was standing at the drinks refrigerator in what was quite a narrow aisle in the shop,' said prosecutor Jon Swain said.

When questioned Mr Joyce claimed one of the boys had been aggressive and had headbutted him, later boasting on his website that he had performed a 'citizen's arrest'. Giving evidence the former politician said he had overcome his battle with alcohol and had not been drinking on the day in question. 'I've put my hand up to every wrong thing I've done in my life,' he said.

Referring to his previous convictions for assault which included his headbutting of an MP in the House of Commons bar in 2012, he said: 'That very troubled three years always involved alcohol. 'There was quite clearly an issue with alcohol. There has not been for some time.'

Instead he said felt 'threatened' when the teenagers walked past them and that one was standing in 'an aggressive stance'. 'I thought he was going to raise his hand and strike me with his telephone,' he told the court. 'I was a little bit shocked how aggressive he was.'

Mr Joyce, a former Army major, said he did not believe the boy was drunk but thought he may have used 'some other substance'. He told the court that, as the boy tried to get past him again, he put his hand out to stop the teenager knocking over a shelf but it fell anyway.

'I said I was going to citizen's arrest him and I held on to him. I have a background as a judo player. I was conscious I didn't want to over-act.'

Joyce will next appear in the same court on May 27, where he is due to be sentenced.

Speaking outside of the courtroom the Scottish politician did not rule out an appeal saying: Possibly, but possibly not.'

In 2012 Mr Joyce was given a community order and was banned from entering bars for three months after assaulting politicians in the House of Commons. He had drunk a bottle of red wine before the incident.

In March 2014 the politician admitted to questioning his career after being fined for calling an Afro-Caribbean airport baggage handler 'f****** fat and black'. The former MP for Falkirk was drunk at the time of the incident at Edinburgh Airport.

The 54-year-old has two children and is separated from his wife Rosemary. In 2012, following his conviction for assault in the House of Commons, he was accused of engaging in an affair with a 17-year-old schoolgirl when she worked on his campaign. Meg Lauder, the woman in question, later claimed to have visited his home 'in her school skirt'.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here